STEALTHMARK · HEAD TO HEAD

All comparisons ↗

Iceman Contributor vs MAI-Thinking-1

Iceman Contributor leads MAI-Thinking-1 by 5.1 points on StealthMark, 19.2 to 14.1. Iceman Contributor and MAI-Thinking-1 each lead on 4 of 9 benchmarks, with 1 tied. MAI-Thinking-1 leads Foresight. Iceman Contributor scores higher on Newton's Mirror, with its largest category advantage in reflections.

See the difference ↘
Model guide ↗
All results ↗

Overall StealthMark

19.2/100Overall rank 47/53
14.1/100Overall rank 51/53

General Intelligence

11.7/100
7.4/100

Visual Intelligence

31.0/100
24.6/100

Reasoning efficiency

On every task, result quality and reasoning tokens are each compared with all measured models and weighed equally. Each dot is one model.

Single-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens on a single problem

Multi-step reasoning Result quality weighed against reasoning tokens across connected steps, as in agentic workflows

  • MAI-Thinking-1Single-step reasoning not measured

Open or local

BENCHMARK BY BENCHMARK

Where each model leads

  • Iceman Contributor
  • MAI-Thinking-1
  • Other models
  • Median

DATASHEET

Specs and pricing

Iceman Contributor scores higher on StealthMark. MAI-Thinking-1 runs 2× faster in our speed test.

  • Iceman Contributor
  • MAI-Thinking-1
  • Other models
  • Median
PricePer 1M output tokens, input below
Iceman Contributor: No list priceMAI-Thinking-1: $8$2 input
Context windowTokens per request, max output below
Iceman Contributor: Not publishedMAI-Thinking-1: 256K64K max outputEstimated
Output speedTokens per second, our measurement
Iceman Contributor: 46tokens/sMAI-Thinking-1: 932× fastertokens/s
SizeTotal and active parameters
Iceman Contributor: Not disclosedMAI-Thinking-1: 1T35B activeEstimated
Developer
Not publishedMicrosoft AI
Released
Not published12 Aug 2026
Origin
Not publishedUnited States
Input → output
Not publishedText → text
Architecture
Not publishedSparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE)

Full datasheets, every price and sourceMAI-Thinking-1 ↗

Anticipating threats and planning ahead. Collect coins while avoiding ghosts. Ghosts move before the player each turn, and collisions cost a life. 3 levels in sequence, up to 66 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Iceman Contributor 3.2/100Rank 47/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 31 ptsTurn 7 / 20

MAI-Thinking-1 6.4/100Rank 44/47

Survived 0 of 3
Foresight: complete playing field
Level 31 ptsTurn 8 / 20

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Level 1Second Thoughts
0 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 2Pressure Pot
3 ptsOut of lives
3 ptsOut of lives
Level 3Hide or Flight
1 ptsOut of lives
1 ptsOut of lives

Cooperative planning and learning from experience. Coordinate two robots to push numbered cores onto matching sockets. Pressure plates hold doors open; moving either robot uses one turn. 5 levels in sequence, up to 152 turns in total. Earlier moves and outcomes carry forward, testing learning across levels.

Iceman Contributor 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 55 ptsTurn 25 / 40

MAI-Thinking-1 3.6/100Rank 44/48

Cleared 1 of 5
Latch: complete playing field
Level 511.8 ptsTurn 16 / 40

Points per level

LevelIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Level 1Hold the door
5.2 ptsCleared
5.2 ptsCleared
Level 2Crossfeed
2.8 ptsFinished early
2 ptsOut of turns
Level 3Relay vault
2.2 ptsFinished early
2.2 ptsFinished early
Level 4Passing bay
4 ptsFinished early
3 ptsFinished early
Level 5Second thoughts
5 ptsFinished early
11.8 ptsFinished early

Newton's Mirror

Same task instructions

Physics, perspective and recursive reflections, tested together. Explore the test ↗

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The image provides limited evidence through rounded volume, faint wall strips and floor echoes. Its main sphere is small and low, the paint beads do not establish the required interaction history, and most of the defining mirror structure is missing.

MAI-Thinking-1

The small paint features and convex shading deserve moderate material credit. The sphere remains undersized and low, with black unusually close to its apex. Crimson and cyan do not establish the required impact histories. Faint reflected echoes supply limited optical evidence, while the defining recursive room, nested sphere and emitter structures remain unestablished.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
State at 600 ms0.5/253.0/25
Camera and placement2.5/152.5/15
Reflections7.5/1204.0/120
Materials and scale3.0/102.0/10
Floor-damage reward0.0/100.0/10

Benchmark task

A spinning metal sphere and paint in a mirrored room test physical reasoning, perspective and consistency across repeated reflections.

Selfie

Different task instructions

Visual construction and creative interpretation.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The crystal crown, cyan eyes and blue faceting communicate an icy fantasy character. Anatomical readability is substantially weaker: the ringed torso, crowded facial construction and fingerless appendages do not resolve the requested childlike crouch or pouncing gesture. Sparse surface detail and shallow shading further limit the result.

MAI-Thinking-1

A recognizable lantern-and-moth illustration with appealing coloured wings and tidy outer contours. Simple construction, a small focal subject and crowded overlaps limit character and depth. The face, six-leg anatomy, seedling and antenna-driven watering joke remain insufficiently readable.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Task & likeness4.0/104.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/104.5/10
Space & placement4.0/105.0/10
Light & reflections4.5/104.5/10
Purposeful detail4.0/104.0/10
Artistry & character4.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/105.0/10
Visual integrity4.0/106.0/10

Benchmark task

Iceman Contributor

Character scenes test expression, anatomy, materials and coherent visual construction.

MAI-Thinking-1

A fluffy moth tends a lantern greenhouse amid a gardening mishap. The scene tests insect anatomy, expressive action, translucent wings and the interaction of light with small objects.

Mona Lisa

Different task instructions

Precise visual recall and portrait reconstruction.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The portrait retains a dark silhouette against an earthy landscape, but replication is weak. The frontal body, elongated facial proportions and undifferentiated hands lose the reference's defining pose and likeness. Basic gradients and layered hills provide some coherence, with little anatomical or painterly detail.

MAI-Thinking-1

A recognizable Mona Lisa motif emerges from dark hair, a pale face and a landscape band. Replication remains weak: the oversized frontal head, broad smile, unresolved torso and missing crossed-hand anatomy diverge substantially from the reference. Simple fills and sparse strokes provide limited volume, material definition or painterly complexity.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Task & likeness1.5/101.0/10
Anatomy & construction1.5/100.5/10
Space & placement2.5/101.0/10
Light & reflections2.0/101.5/10
Purposeful detail2.0/101.0/10
Artistry & character2.0/101.5/10
Materials & effects2.0/100.5/10
Visual integrity3.0/103.0/10

Benchmark task

An SVG interpretation of the Mona Lisa tests facial likeness, anatomy and the composition of a familiar portrait.

Beach

Different task instructions

Creativity, perspective and visual beauty.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

A coherent sunset beach with recognizable animals, playful details and effective palm framing. Connected silhouettes and layered scenery support modest construction and placement credit. Jointless figures, limited foreshortening and an inadequately separated sun and reflection keep the execution basic despite its attractive color.

MAI-Thinking-1

A coherent, cheerful beach scene with balanced placement, clean shapes and controlled sunset colours. Animals, birds and playful accessories are recognizable, but basic dolphin construction, weak grounding, schematic reflections and sparse material detail limit the drawing's accomplishment.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Task & likeness7.0/106.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/104.0/10
Space & placement6.0/105.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/104.0/10
Purposeful detail5.5/104.5/10
Artistry & character3.5/104.0/10
Materials & effects4.5/103.5/10
Visual integrity5.0/104.5/10

Benchmark task

A busy shoreline at sunset tests scene composition, animal forms and the relationship between light and water reflections.

Ground Truth

Different task instructions

Physical reasoning, light and visual reconstruction.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

MAI-Thinking-1

This benchmark has not been assessed yet.

Benchmark task

A plank, computer mouse and blueberry in a steel room test physical stability, spatial relationships, materials and lighting.

Raccoon

Different task instructions

Scene composition and interacting subjects.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

The sunset palette and red hull establish an appealing setting, but the central interaction remains unresolved. Overlapping bodies obscure the dog, supported seating is unclear, and no readable paw-to-control grip demonstrates steering. Simple construction, weak environmental lighting and loosely described spray limit depth and finish.

MAI-Thinking-1

The recognizable raccoon and clean, shaded forms make a readable cartoon. The dog's steering remains undemonstrated, while ambiguous seating contacts and a minimally constructed craft weaken the central interaction. Controlled gradients and edges deserve credit, but anatomy, purposeful detail and water displacement remain basic.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Task & likeness2.0/103.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.0/102.0/10
Space & placement3.0/105.0/10
Light & reflections4.0/103.5/10
Purposeful detail3.5/103.0/10
Artistry & character2.5/102.5/10
Materials & effects4.0/103.5/10
Visual integrity2.5/105.5/10

Benchmark task

A jet-ski scene pairs a canine driver with a raccoon passenger. It tests the placement and contact of interacting subjects, along with vehicle construction.

Pelican

Different task instructions

Subject construction and spatial relationships.

The judgment

Iceman Contributor

A recognizable pelican and bicycle sit within an appealing sunset composition. Feather contours, bill shape and atmospheric colour provide character, but disconnected-looking leg origins, unclear pedal contact and unresolved steering weaken the central riding action. Consistent wheel alignment establishes a side view without resolving the rider's support.

MAI-Thinking-1

A recognizable pelican and bicycle combine clean rounded forms, expressive facial details and effective surface shading. Aligned wheels and soft shadows establish placement, but unresolved pedal engagement, absent steering contact and sparse drivetrain construction weaken the riding action. Limited feather complexity and shallow space constrain an otherwise appealing illustration.

Score breakdown

CategoryIceman ContributorMAI-Thinking-1
Task & likeness4.0/107.0/10
Anatomy & construction3.5/104.5/10
Space & placement3.5/105.5/10
Light & reflections5.0/107.0/10
Purposeful detail4.5/105.0/10
Artistry & character3.5/105.0/10
Materials & effects4.0/104.5/10
Visual integrity3.0/107.0/10

Benchmark task

A cycling pelican tests anatomy, riding posture and contact between the bird and the bicycle.